"Wtort 



>nr\H-'' m 



>&BM<, 






-Mi&WN 



Af\rr\ 



■n ~ Mi 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 



1 




ft A 



u"SW |[o 

/ ±- 

| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. . 



/ - 



"mi 



^V^/TrS 






ij 



1^1 

ill 






nr\*^ 



aA 



OOa/W 



Wm 



m®&y?s/* 












ft£fiB&@&& 



^IliSlOA^ 



SotYVvsa 









A =..;■ X 



mm 



wi 



--:-,. n ^^^,nA- 



yvyyU" 



- 4Wr 



mm® 



&dm t 



fWmyr^ : - " - - - - : ; : : - - : - ^ : 



mmmM 






AAA, 



' - ^©K 



- : - ^ c 5 5 



\AAaaAAa 



/ 



BAPTIST PRETENSIONS: 



First. " We are the only trite Church of 
Christ: 1 

Second. "We have been persecuted for our, 
principles." 

Third. u We have given civil and religious 
liberty to America: 1 



MET AND CONFUTED BY 



THE REV. B. F. SEDWICK, 



Member of the Kentucky Conference. 




NASHVILLE, TENN. : 
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 

1876. 



V 



I 



#*<b 




Entered^ according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, 

By B. F. SEDWICK, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at "Washington. 



INTRODUCTION. 

I DEEPLY regret the necessity which exists for the publi- 
cation of this pamphlet. 

In the exposure of Jesuitism, whether popish or Protest- 
ant, when it is needful to be done, he who performs it in a 
candid and charitable spirit deserves the gratitude of all 
concerned. An eminent British statesman has said that 
"public confidence may be far more easily destroyed than re- 
stored, when once affected. A brainless fanatic may destroy 
in an hour a temple which required ages, and incalculable 
treasure, with the direction of the highest order of genius, to 
complete." Let the confidence of the masses of the people 
in the Bible truth of any Church be once destroyed, and 
what may we not expect? 

Paine and Voltaire have scarcely employed more profanity 
in their attacks upon the sacred writings than some promi- 
nent Baptist preachers have used in reference to the Methodist 
Church. Some have indulged in low, vulgar abuse, which 
would far better become the very lowest infidel club than an 
assembly of those calling themselves Christians. 

These "nibbling critics" have little talent and less learn- 
ing, yet they have misled many of the unwary, and will, if 
not checked, do much harm to the cause of truth. 

The Baptist Centennial in Kentucky is used as an occasion 
to unchurch all religious sects but themselves, They assert 



4 Introduction. 

that they were the first people in the worid to proclaim civil 
and religious liberty, for which they suffered bonds, imprison- 
ment, stripes, and death. 

The Baptist Recorder, Dr. Caperton, Elder J. E. Carter's 
pamphlet entitled "Baptists and the Higher Liberty," D. 
B. Bay's " Battle Flag," and hundreds of such, are labor- 
ing to convince the people that the Methodist Church is no 
part of the Church of God! 

My main object in this pamphlet will be to set forth these 
Baptist pretensions in their true light, by presenting the facts 
in connection with their origin and history. 

In preparing my articles on "Baptist Succession," I am 
largely indebted to Clement's " Baptist Pretensions to Antiq- 
uity," a book the reader can order from the Southern Meth- 
odist Publishing House. 

B. F. Sedwick. 

New Castle, Ky., May 20, 1876. 



BAPTIST PRETENSIONS. 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER I. 

THE origin of the Baptist Church, with some 
other items connected with its history, is 
made a question into which all religious societies 
are bound to look. This is forced upon them by 
the Baptists themselves. They say that Pedobap- 
tists are not evangelical denominations, and are not 
built upon the laws of Christ, but upon those of 
Romanism. "And Baptists, believing that Pedo- 
baptist organizations are human institutions, they 
ought, by word and deed, to show it." {Western 
Recorder.) In this they persecute and slander their 
neighbors, whose intelligence and piety have never 
been excelled by their accusers. Their motto is, 
" Entangling alliances with none." This will apply 
to us as a religious community. "It is difficult to 
prescribe the boundaries of intimacy, friendship, 
and Christian and clerical intercourse, with all 
classes of evangelical Pedobaptists; but as sure as 
we attempt to build together in Churches, etc., we 
shall suffer injury and loss." (Benedict, p. 944.) 
Does not that PedobaptUt, or Church, that frater- 
nizes with such Baptists, feel, on every such unequal 



6 Baptist Pretensions. 

association, humbled and disgraced in his own esti- 
mation? If the leading men of the Methodist 
Church should speak and write of other Churches 
as those of the Baptist Church do, I would raise 
my voice against them; and if they could not be 
influenced to speak evil of no man, I would, in that 
event, denounce them as uncharitable, and with- 
draw myself from them. Such bigotry and un- 
founded pretensions are traceable to the absurd 
idea of " Baptist succession." The Baptist Church 
cannot be traced farther back than about two hun- 
dred and forty years. Dr. Wall wrote his great 
work on Infant Baptism in 1705, in which he holds 
the following language concerning the Baptists : 
"In England there were now and then some Dutch- 
men found of the Anabaptist opinion ever since the 
time it had taken footing in Holland, but none of 
the English nation are known to have embraced it 
in a long time after." He cites Bishop Jewel, 
who says: "They have no acquaintance with us, 
either in England, Germany, France, Scotland, 
Denmark, Sweden, nor in any place else where the 
gospel of Christ is clearly preached." Quoting 
from Fox's Letter to Queen Elizabeth, he says: "As 
for their errors, indeed, no man of sense can deny 
that they are absurd ; and I wonder that such mon- 
strous opinions could come into the mind of any 
Christian. And there is great reason to give God 
thanks, on this account, that I hear not of any 
Englishman that is inclined to that madness." Dr. 
Wall declares that there was no English Baptist 
Church until near 1633. Elder Haynes, a Baptist 
historian, gives the same date. Dr. Hall, an emi- 
nent Baptist minister of England, in speaking of a 
separate and distinct Baptist Church in early times, 
says : " Of this not the faintest trace or vestige is 
to be found in ecclesiastical history; and the sup- 



Baptist History. 7 

position is completely confuted by the concurrent 
testimony of ancient writers to the universal incor- 
poration of orthodox Churches into one grand 
community. Not the shadow of evidence can be 
produced to prove the existence, during that long 
trace of time, of a single Society of which adult 
baptism was the distinguishing characteristic. In- 
deed, we read of the separate existence of no Bap- 
tist Churches anywhere upon the continent during 
the whole period of the Middle Ages." 

These writers are amply sufficient to show the ut- 
ter futility of Baptist pretensions. Bishop Burnet, 
as quoted by Crosby, finds no history of Baptists 
until "the middle of the sixteenth century/*' The 
following extracts are from Benedict, a Baptist 
historian: "The first work I have found on bap- 
tism, which escaped the ravages of time, of which 
any particular account is given, is John Smyth's 
'Dialogue on Baptism,' date 1609." "This Smyth 
was first one of the Brownite party who went to 
Holland about the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, who, on account of his having baptized 
himself, was denominated the Sebaptist." "For 
more than five hundred years from the coming; of 
St. Austin into England, impenetrable clouds of 
darkness are spread over the whole history of this 
kingdom, so far as the Baptists are concerned, and 
no glances can be had of any people who bore any 
resemblance to them until about the middle of the 
eleventh century." "Toward the middle of the 
twelfth century a small Society of these Puritans, 
or "Waldenses, or Paulicians, so called, made their 
appearance in England. But it is indeed very diffi- 
cult to discover with certainty what their opinions 
were." "John Smyth, who baptized himself, is 
distinctly announced by Mr. Taylor, their historian, 
as the founder of the English General Baptist 



8 Baptist Pretensions. 

Church." "From some expressions in a book 
published by his followers, in less than five years 
after his (Smyth's) death, Mr. Taylor draws the 
conclusion that Smyth and one of his companions 
baptized each other, as was the case with Roger 
Williams, and some others." 

A Confession of Faith. " In 1611 the first docu- 
ment of this kind was published by John Smyth, 
and his associates, at Amsterdam, in Holland. In 
1615 a paper was published by the same party, in 
which they take occasion to state their sentiments 
on many important points of doctrine." 

Now, candid reader, pause and consider well the 
array of authorities I have given above ; and then 
read what follows from Elder D. B. Ray, and you 
will agree with me that he is a most unreliable and 
reckless writer. Mr. Ray says: "We are told by 
some who profess to be our friends that the English 
Baptists originated with one John Smyth, who bap- 
tized himself and others; and thus originated the 
Baptists of England. And here, they tell us, the 
Baptist chain of succession is broken. Instead of 
this, it will be seen that John Smyth, the Sebap- 
tist, was never an English Baptist in his life. And 
from all the developments in the case, the sebap- 
tism (self-baptism) of John Smyth is one of those 
silly stories circulated by the enemies of Baptists! 
John Smyth, and a part of his company, soon be- 
came dissatisfied with their rash proceedings, upon 
which a difficulty arose between them and the ma- 
jority of the Church, on account of which Smyth 
and his party were excluded ! Mr. Smyth repudi- 
ated his own baptism and Church-organization as 
invalid, and, with his party, sought admission into 
one of the Mennonite Churches at Amsterdam, and 
was received after making the following confession." 
Now, if there' be any statements made by Mr. 



Baptist History. 9 

Ray, as quoted above, true, I am not aware of it. 
I fear they are not. One thing is certain, if he be 
correct, all the Baptist historians I have read are 
false, and ought to be committed to the flames. If 
they are right in this case — which I have no doubt 
thej r are — then the Baptist Church ought to deal 
with Mr. Ray for falsifying the record. 

That the reader may see that my views are cor- 
rect, I will support the authors already given by 
adding a few others. Mr. Orchard, Baptist histo- 
rian, says (p. 247): "Mr. Smyth, who settled at 
Ley, in Holland, is said to have died abroad, though 
others state that he returned to England, and that 
Mr. Helwisse succeeded him in London." "First 
by baptizing himself." "Smyth was accounted 
one of the grandees of the separation, and that he 
and his followers did at once, as it were, swallow 
up all the rest of the separation." 

Mr. Cramp, Baptist historian, says (p. 286) : 
"There has been much dispute respecting the 
manner in which they proceeded. Some say that 
Smyth baptized himself, and then baptized the 
others." Mr. Curtin, an able Baptist writer (p. 35), 
says: "Opposed to him (John Robinson, the father 
of the Pilgrims) was John Smyth, originally an 
Episcopal clergyman of such superior abilities that 
Bishop Hall speaks even of Robinson as no more 
than his ' shadow/ He, thinking it would be a 
great help and encouragement to the Baptists in 
England for the exiles to return and openly avow 
their sentiments, put himself at the head of his 
brethren, and returned with them as their pastor to 
London, in order, as they declared, that Christ 
might say to them, ministering to their persecuted 
brethren, 'I was in prison, and ye visited me; in 
distress, and ye comforted me.' Thus they re- 
turned to their own country." 
1* 



10 Baptist Pretensions. 

Now, honest reader, turn back and read the au- 
thors I have given, side by side with what Mr. Ray 
has said, and you will be amazed at Mr. Ray's folly 
and madness. These authors, as with one voice, 
contradict the silly and puerile statements of Mr. 
Ray. Those who will still contend that Mr. Ray is 
correct must set aside all the intelligence, wisdom, 
and moral honesty of Baptist history. 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER II. 

ME. BENEDICT says: "Roger Williams, the 
founder of the first Baptist Church in Amer- 
ica, was born in Wales, in 1598. He landed in 
AmericaFebruary 5, 1630. He settled at Providence 
1636 ; and, in 1639, he was baptized by Ezekiel Hol- 
liman, a layman, who was appointed bj T the little 
company for the purpose. Then he baptized the 
rest of the company, and thus laid the foundation 
for the first Baptist Church in Providence, and on 
the American continent. Some of our writers have 
taken no little pains to apologize for this unusual 
transaction, but, in my opinion, it was just such a 
course as all companies of believers who wish to 
form a Church in such extraordinary circumstances 
should pursue." 

Again he says : " The records of the Church name 
about four years as the duration of his pastorship. 
This brought it to the time when he went to Eng- 
land for the first charter, " 1643. 

Mr. Knowles and others contend his pastorship 
was but a few months, to which Mr. Benedict re- 
plies : "The arguments, however, are founded en- 
tirely on statements made by opponents. But with 
an infant Church, with no provisions for ministerial 
support, it is altogether probable that the lines of 
distinction were very loosely drawn between the 



12 Baptist Pretensions. 

pastor and those of other ministers who resided 
among them, as is now in many parts of the 
country. From these brief details of the Baptist 
denomination in Rhode Island, it is plain to be seen 
that the voluntary principle in the support of the 
gospel has been entirely successful in this free gov- 
ernment. It is also a gratifying circumstance that 
the ground first occupied by Roger Williams, John 
Clarke, and their associates, has from the begin- 
ning sustained a regular succession of well-regu- 
lated Churches that they planted by these princi- 
ples — pioneers in the cause of freedom, civil and 
religious." 

And again Benedict says: "It would be difficult 
at this day to make a complete list of the Baptist 
communities which have sprung from this ancient 
and prolific mother. From it probably originated, 
in early times, all which arose in the northern part 
of the State. This Church shot out into divers 
branches as the members increased. In 1743 a 
Church was formed at Greenwich, partly of mem- 
bers from this body. In 1805-6 Second Church, 
Providence, and those at Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, 
were formed of members from the parent stock; and 
large draughts have been made from it in the for- 
mation of a number of the city Churches which 
have arisen since that period." 

Kind reader, you will see my object in being so 
careful in giving dates and facts from Mr. Benedict, 
seeing that his testimony is impeached by Mr. Ray 
in his book, page 42. He says : " Roger Williams 
was never a member of a Baptist Church." [!] 
"But Mr. Benedict was confused and unsettled in 
regard to the R. Williams affair." 

On page 443 Benedict is examining the " causes of 
his (Williams) icithdrawing from the infant Church he 
laid formed, and his peculiar sentiments in after life.' 1 



Baptist History. 13 

Here is where Benedict says: "The more I study 
on this subject, the more I am unsettled and con- 
fused. As to his retiring soon from the pastoral 
office, there can be no doubt; but whether this was 
on account of the burden of public duties, or from 
embarrassments in his feelings, is a point by no 
means clear." 

Here is the place and subject on which he was 
"unsettled and confused." 

Now the subject under discussion is on page 450, 
"First Church in Providence." In this connection 
Benedict gives the history of Williams's connection 
with this Church. Mr. Ray contradicts Benedict's 
testimon}^, and says : " The fact that Benedict was, 
in mind, unsettled and confused in regard to the 
Roger Williams affair renders his testimony on this 
subject of but little value. " Mr. Benedict never 
said that his mind was unsettled and confused on 
the Providence Church affair, or about Williams's 
membership in it. 

What has Mr. Bay's quotation to do with the 
"First Church in Providence?" Ah! this man 
Bay knew what he intended by perversion of the 
truth. He knew there are but few of his readers 
who have it in their power to detect his deception. 
By so doing, he makes the false impression that Mr. 
Benedict was too ignorant to write a true and relia- 
ble history of the Baptist Church. And all this to 
make it appear that he speaks the truth in saying 
that " Roger Williams was never a member of a 
Baptist Church." Again, Mr. Ray says: "Within 
four months after his baptism, Williams retired from 
his position as pastor of his Society, and renounced 
his own baptism as invalid." [!] Benedict, as quoted 
above, contends that R.Williams was pastor of said 
Church about four years, and that the contrary opin- 
ions are founded entirely on statements made by op- 



14 Baptist Pjretensions. 

portents! And where does this man Ray learn that 
Williams " renounced his own baptism as invalid ?" 
R. Williams continued to preach until death closed 
his useful career. Shame on you, Mr. Ray ! Where 
is thy blush ? And again, Mr. Ray, knowingly and 
with evil intent, falsifies the history in saying : " The 
Newport, and not the present Providence Church, is 
the oldest Baptist Church in America." Benedict 
says : " Thomas Olney was successor of Williams in 
the pastorship over the Williams Church." Mr. Ray 
says : " Thomas Olney was pastor over the one gath- 
ered sometime after the Williams Church came to 
nothing." What fool-hardiness in the face of all 
history ! What does he gain by this shift, when it 
is known that Mr. Olney received his baptism from 
Williams — lay baptism! 

I will now notice Mr. Ray's climax of deception 
in this matter. He says, on page 55 : " It cannot, 
therefore, be the first Church in America, from the 
fact that all historians agree that the Newport Church 
was organized as early as 1644." Does Benedict 
agree that the Newport Church was the first Church 
in America? Never. 

To set aside Mr. Benedict's testimony in this 
case, Mr. Ray adduces " Comer, who had formed a 
design to write a history, but only lived to commence 
it." Mr. Ray adds : " What right have we to inval- 
idate the emphatic statement of John Comer, upon 
the confused evidence of Mr. Benedict?" "Later 
developments have established the fact that the New- 
port Church is not only the first Church in America, 
but that it w r as established in 1638, one year before 
the Roger Williams Church was formed." 

To support him in this false statement, he refers 
his reader to a sermon preached by a Mr. Callender 
in 1738, in which he said, one hundred }^ears ago, 
the First Church in Newport was one hundred 



Baptist History. 15 

years old. Mr. Ray can see no mistake in this ser- 
mon — not he; but. candid reader, you shall see 
it before I have done with this question. Again, 
for evidence to make it appear that Newport 
Church was formed in 163S. Mr. Ray goes to John 
rke's tombstone. Reader, here is what is on 
that tombstone — viz.: "He. with his associates, 
came to this island from Mass.. in March. 163S, 0. 
S.. and on the 24th of the same month obtained a 
deed thereof from the Indians. He shortly after 
gathered the Church aforesaid, and became its pas- 
tor." This is what is graven in the rock. Now no- 
tice what Mr. Ray says, and compare the two state- 
ments. He has it, "It is emphatically stated, and 
graven in the rock, that John Clarke came to this 
island in March, 1638, and that he shortly after 
gathered the Church aforesaid, and became its pas- 
tor." Mr. Ray has chiseled out of the rock, 4i his 
associates." "from Mass.," i; 0. S. ;" "and on the 
24th of the same month obtained a deed thereof 
from the Indians." 

Now, dear reader, what confidence can be placed 
in a man's word who can take from a tombstone all 
this to mislead his readers, and thereby establish a 
falsehood for sectarian purposes? These omissions 
are every thing in properly arriving at the facts in 
this question. Leaving off ;i 0. S." (old style), and 
he has 1638, new style, when it would be 1637 in 
new style. Xow Mr. Ray could have no objection 
to this, did it not put Clarke and his associates in 
the island before they had left Massachusetts. 
Hence he drops " 0. S.," and figures as though it 
was new style — 1633! ' ; His associates," "from 
Mass.," "24th of the same month obtained a deed 
thereof from the Indians," cuts off all that points 
to the history in this case. 

Let ps now turn to the history in this matter. 



16 Baptist Pretensions. 

Benedict, p. 463: "On their return, the 7th of 
March, 1638, the men, to the number of eighteen, 
incorporated themselves a body politic, and chose 
"William Coddington their judge, or chief magis- 
trate. The first settlement on the island was com- 
menced at its northern extremity, where a town 
was regularly laid out, and at first named Pocasset 
— subsequently Portsmouth. But so rapid was the 
increase of the colony, during the following sum- 
mer, that it was deemed advisable, for their mu- 
tual prosperity, to commence a settlement on some 
other part of the island. Accordingly, the follow- 
ing spring, Mr. Clarke, with several others, re- 
moved to the south part of the island, and com- 
menced a settlement, to which they gave the name 
of Newport." 

There, now, Mr. Ray has Clarke and a Church in 
full blast in Newport a year before there was such 
a town ! 

Benedict, p. 465, says : " For the origin of this 
Church we must go back to 1644, when, according 
to tradition, it was formed. Rev. John Clarke, 
M.D., the founder of this Church, became its first 
minister.' , 

Mr. Ray undertakes to establish a " Baptist suc- 
cession" from the apostles down, and, finding he 
cannot do this without perverting history, where 
there is no history to pervert, he makes such as 
is important to the accomplishment of his under- 
taking. He presumes largely upon the ignorance 
of his readers. He is wholly inexcusable: if he is 
ignorant of Baptist history, he should not affirm 
concerning that about which he is not informed; 
but, if he knows the facts in the case, he is evi- 
dently dishonest, and unworthy of respect. 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER III. 

BAPTIST writers claim that they were perse- 
cuted by all others, in all ages, and hence they 
were the true Church. If all they have written on 
this subject were extracted from their histories, I 
suppose their volumes would be reduced one-third. 
Now, this thing of persecution is bad business, no 
matter when or where it is indulged in, and ought 
to be condemned by all. But a man or a people 
may be punished for wrong-doing, and not for 
righteousness* sake. 

Suppose all that is said by Mr. Eay in his book 
be true, as to the persecutions of the Baptists of 
former years, that wrong will not justify his in per- 
secuting the Churches of this day, as he has done 
on a large scale. He takes particular pains to de- 
fame the M. E. Church, South. Seeing this to be 
a specialty in his book, I called on G. E. Stevens & 
Co., Cincinnati, who published it, and learned that 
u Mr. Ray's 'Baptist Succession ' was mainly shipped 
down South/ ' This fact satisfied me that Mr. Kay 
with evil intent gave so much time and space in 
unfairly noticing the history, doctrines, and polity 
of the M. E. Church, South. I will now give the 
reader a few specimens of his piety when writing 
about Methodists — viz.: "Even if mixed commun- 
ion were scriptural, we could not consistently com- 



18 Baptist Pretensions. 

raune with the Methodists, from the fact that they 
have reduced it in part to a mere love-feast;" " and 
those who partake of it are guilty of idolatry." 
"The table spread in Mr. Wesley's Society is not 
the Lord's-table; it is Weslev's table."" "The 
Bishop of the Methodist Church is opposed to open 
communion';" "the Methodist preacher who would 
invite them (Baptists) is guilty of the violation of 
his own solemn oath" — "I mean the babies whom 
they have kidnapped, sentenced, and condemned to 
Methodism." "According to the first supposition, 
they are too sinful for our fellowship;" "that to 
them belong none of the rights and privileges of a 
Christian Church." "It comes with an ill grace 
from the members of denominations whose skirts 
are all stained with Baptist blood to commune 
with the Baptists." "All the branches of Protest- 
antism have their denominational succession from 
the Church of Rome. The Methodist Society came 
out of the Church of England. This Society is 
wholly destitute of those peculiar features which 
characterize the Church of Jesus Christ;" "and 
instead of the Scriptures, the Methodist Society is 
governed by the Book of Discipline, which is not 
even founded on the Bible;" "neither do the Meth- 
odists observe the Bible order of the command- 
ments;" "neither do they observe the religious equal- 
ity taught in the Scriptures." "And furthermore, 
the Methodists have retained in their theory the pop- 
ish doctrine of baptismal salvation;" "it is still re- 
tained in the Discipline." " Mr. Wesley, the founder 
of the Methodist Society, exhibits the fact that he 
embraced the Romish abomination of baptismal sal- 
vation, and even applied it to infants. This doctrine 
is incorporated in Methodism ; and this error of itself 
would be sufficient to invalidate the claims of the 
Methodist Society to be a true Church of Christ." 



Baptist History. 19 

I might add to this list of the fruits of Mr. Ray's 
spirit, but this will do. Now, who can doubt that 
Mr. Ray is in the only pure Church, and that he 
never slanders his neighbors, or persecutes the inno- 
cent ! No, not he ! I do not think such a rancor 
of abuse of a religious Church can be found among 
respectable infidels! Mr. Ray's conduct toward 
the Methodist Church and people proves most con- 
clusively total depravity. We, as a Church, in 
Kentucky, have suffered so long under the lash, 
without the necessary defense, our enemies seem to 
think that the} 7 may say what they may see proper 
of Methodism, and no notice will be taken of it! 

Baptist historians write extensively on the sub- 
jects of persecution and political and religious lib- 
erty. I would not notice this subject, did not Bap- 
tist history claim to be in the inculcation of civil 
and religious liberty. This is all for effect. To 
hear them on the subject, one would be led to 
believe that nobody ever thought of civil and re- 
ligious liberty until they proclaimed it, "fought, 
bled, and died for it." The Baptists claim the 
Donatists as their ancestors. Did they allow of 
civil and religious liberty? "These gave rise to a 
horrible confederacy. This bloody set of men 
maintained their cause by the force of arms, and 
rendered this sect an object of the utmost abhor- 
rence. They were an impetuous torrent, which 
inundated and desolated the adjacent country." A 
love of liberty was this ! The whole matter, as a 
first cause, lay in the ideas they had conceived of 
their neighbors, and what constituted the true 
Church of Christ on earth. Such malign notions 
as they had must always result in strong opposi- 
tion, if not bloodshed, if there be an opportunity. 
They took the position that to commune with other 
Churches was wrong — they alone were pure! and 



20 Baptist Pretensions. 

with the pen, tongue, and sword, sought to carry 
their points. Is this the way to promulgate repub- 
licanism? Does any one, then, wonder that they 
were met by the civil forces, and made to know 
their place? 

Another Baptist favorite was Arnold, the father 
of the Arnoldists, who was " crucified, burned to 
ashes." He was a John Brown martyr. To listen 
to the story, as told by Baptist history, these Ar- 
noldists were " guilty of no crime." It was all for 
their Baptist principles. Arnold set himself to de- 
stroy existing law and order in Church and State. 
He excited troubles in both, and raised tumults and 
seditions among the people. Such were the causes 
of their sufferings and death. This is canonized as 
persecution for the truth! Mr. Orchard says of this 
people, his " desire is to be found succeeding in 
spirit, views, and practice;" and places these peo- 
ple in the line of succession ! 

Baptist histories also claim the Beghards, or 
Picards, as Baptists, speaking highly of their 
purity. It was one of the leading principles of 
this sect that the tender instincts of nature, with 
bashfulness and modesty, were evident marks of 
inherent corruption — claimed to be so pure that, 
like Adam and Eve in paradise, they went stark 
naked, and in this condition met in divine worship. 
And they preached that men and women who could 
not do as they do, in this respect, with their pas- 
sions unmoved, were not free. 

Is this the liberty for which they contended? 
Shall men and women, under pretense of religion 
or civil rights, be unrestrained in giving offense to 
common modesty? Why, then, this hue and cry 
among Baptists of the sufferings of this people for 
these things? These things! Baptist writers do 
not tell you for what things they suffered. 



Baptist History. 21 

I have a good many Baptist histories before me, 
and all say: "We know we are the people of God, 
for we have been persecuted in all ages of the 
world." "See how our brethren, the Beghards, 
were persecuted. " 

The cry of "Persecution!" "Persecution!" goes 
booming long and loud through all the land. There 
is a way to account for this erroneous and injurious 
method of writing history. A book, bearing date 
1631, called "Dutch Martyrology," is the source of 
all this mischief. This work was translated into 
English in 1635, and called "Martyrs' Mirror; or, 
Bloody Theater." The first part of this book is 
devoted to the history of martyrs generally, from 
the introduction of the Church to the time of the 
Reformation ; the second part, the martyrdoms of 
the Anabaptists. From this book all the Baptist 
historians have started out, untrue as it is. Benedict 
says of his own history: "From this book quota- 
tions are made up to page 924." 

Robinson, Baptist historian, says : "D' An vers on 
Baptism is but an abridgment of the 'Dutch Mar- 
tyrology.' J The same can be said of all who have 
written from that day to this. It is true, all may 
not have made the extracts from this false and 
ignorant Dutch book, yet they have done so from 
those who have. And this Dutch book was made 
up mainly from loose, unreliable publications, some 
without date, found among the corrupt Anabaptists 
— such as "Thos. Yon Imbrock," "Chronicle of 
Sebastian Frank," "Chronicle of P. I. Twish," 
1617, and the like — absolutely unworthy of any 
confidence. There is no Baptist history before the 
public which is not founded in error. 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER IV. 

IX my last number I assigned a reason wh} 7 Bap- 
tist writers have become addicted to saying so 
many foolish things about persecutions— that their 
history is taken from the " Dutch Marty rology." Iso 
candid Baptist, unbiased by education, will offer 
such history as true; but will agree with the great 
and good Dr. Hall, an eminent Baptist minister of 
England. He says, in speaking of distinct and sep- 
arate Baptist Churches, in early ages of the Church : 
"Of this not the faintest trace or vestige is to be 
found in ecclesiastical history. Not the shadow of 
evidence can be produced to prove the existence, 
during that long trace of time, of a single Society of 
which adult baptism was the distinguishing charac- 
teristic. Indeed, we read of the separate existence 
of no Baptist Churches anywhere upon the conti- 
nent during the whole period of the Middle Ages, 
and until the time of the Reformation." 

Benedict, p. 137, says: "I have been surprised to 
see how many of the prominent facts which appear 
in the works of Baptist authors, for two centuries 
past, have come down directly, or remotely, from 
this old Dutch book." 

And the first of them w r ere written near the times 
of the Munster riots, and by men of that turbulent 
party. They are not worthy of the least confidence. 



Baptist History. 23 

Baptist historians mostly call these Anabaptists 
"our brethren," and have founded all their alleged 
facts connected with the history of their Churches 
of those times upon such false and fabulous publica- 
tions. The greater part of the history of these old 
Dutch books has been proved to be false and un- 
founded, by all history of those times. Now, it is 
necessary that we examine into the reasons why 
there was said to be so much persecution in those 
days. 

Take the Caputiati, of whom nearly all writers 
doubt the piety and exemplary conduct; and also 
the sect of the Apostolics, whom St. Bernard opposed 
with such bitterness and fury, who drew after them 
a multitude of adherents of all ranks and order. 

Anabaptist, in the estimation of all nations, was 
equivalent to rebels or enemy of existing govern- 
ments. They advocated the Fifth-monarchy polit- 
ical economy. (1) The above-named sects held it 
unlawful to take an oath ; (2) they suffered their hair 
and their beards to grow to an enormous length, so 
that their aspect was inexpressibly extravagant and 
savage; (3) they preferred celibacy to wedlock, and 
called themselves the chaste brothers and sisters — 
notwithstanding which, (4) each man had a spir- 
itual sister with him, with whom he lived in a do- 
mestic relation, lying in the same chamber with 
her, though not in the same bed. In the Council 
at Rheims, in 1148, a man of Bretagne, whose 
name was Eon, was condemned for pretending to 
be the Son of God. He ended his days in a misera- 
ble prison, and left a considerable number of fol- 
lowers and adherents, whom persecution and death 
in the most dreadful forms could not persuade to 
abandon his cause, or to renounce an absurdity 
which one would think could never have gained 
credit but in receptacles for lunatics. The lawless- 



24 Baptist Pretensions. 

ness and indecency of these people were carried on 
under the cloak of religion, with a view of escaping 
the penalties of the civil law. But the punishment 
of these transgressors has given Baptist historians a 
chance to talk about the cruel sufferings of their 
dear brethren for religious and civil liberty ! 

The rebellion raised by Muncer, an Anabaptist, 
in 1525, caused great jealousy among all good citi- 
zens, and those in authority to pass severe and cruel 
laws to suppress and keep down the Anabaptists. 
And just here the infamous Dutch "Martyrs' Mirror; 
or, Bloody Theater," finds martyrdoms to record — 
keeping concealed the robbery, cruelty, and murder, 
of these Anabaptists, before there was any punish- 
ment inflicted upon them. 

Benedict, p. 90, says: "Through the whole of 
Germany, and in all the surrounding countries, Ana- 
baptist and rebel were synonymous terms; and it 
seemed next to impossible to erase this impression 
from the minds of the rulers, both civil and eccle- 
siastical." Jacques d'Auchy, one of those rebels, 
when before a commission, in 1558, was addressed 
by them: "We are well aware of what lies con- 
cealed in you, and your doctrine; had you the 
power, you would soon cut off our heads, as was 
done by your people at Munster, Amsterdam, and 
other places." These rebels were punished as vio- 
lators of law, not for righteousness' sake. Many of 
the councils of that age refer in general terms to 
the heretics of the times, condemning all; and no 
intelligent Baptist will say that all the parties con- 
demned were such as they call Baptists. 

"Where these councils had a direct application to 
sects claimed as Baptists, it was to correct some 
enormities in conduct, injurious to the public safety 
or happiness. Cromwell would not have Anabap- 
tists in his regiment, because they were, in princi- 



Baptist History. 25 

pie, opposed to civil governments. These facts were 
well founded. January, 1661, Thomas Yenner 
preached in London, "warmed his admirers with 
passionate expectations of a fifth universal monarchy, 
under the personal reign of King Jesus upon earth, 
and that the saints were to take the kingdom them- 
selves. " They left the meeting-house well armed, 
"with a resolution to subvert the present govern- 
ment, or die in the attempt.'' 

This man and his party suffered terribly — some 
even death. They were Anabaptists, and this re- 
bellion went to increase the opposition to that cor- 
rupt people. And now, strange to tell, Baptist 
historians say that the legal punishment of rebels in 
arms "was manifestly an unauthorized stretch of 
power," and these good Baptists were persecuted! 

Another martyr of "piety and honesty," in 1649, 
took part in a mutiny of the troops; he. Cornet 
Denne, and three others, were sentenced to be shot. 
This Denne was a Baptist preacher; and it is now 
said he was persecuted! Major-General Harrison is 
claimed to be a Baptist, and suffered death for his 
religious principles. Not so. He was entirely 
opposed to Cromwell and the Protectorate. He 
also embraced the Fifth-monarchy principles. And 
D'Anver's complicity in the Monmouth rebellion has 
given him a place among the Baptist martyrs ! John 
von Leyden, in 1533, soon brought the matter so 
far, by much disputing, etc., that not only Burnhard 
Rotm&n was first opposed by him, but also his col- 
leagues, H. Straprede, and others, began to preach 
against infant baptism, and that one might propa- 
gate and protect his religion by the sword and other 
weapons. 

Mr. Cramp, Baptist historian, p. 448, says: "Mr. 
Eiffin was a good citizen of the Commonwealth; he 
submitted to the Protectorate; he honored the king. 
2 



26 Baptist Pretensions. 

His policy was — and so he advised his brethren — 
to yield obedience to the existing government, in 
things civil, whatever might be the form of that gov- 
ernment. Hence he was held in high esteem by all 
parties, and great deference was shown him." 

They began to raise fortifications, and made ef- 
forts to exterminate the Catholics; but they were 
defeated, and these Baptists suffered martyrdom! 
I assert that no man among them, true to his God 
and country, was persecuted. If this was not the 
case in any one, no matter what were his religious 
views, he was made to pay the penalty. 

Had those sects, claimed as Baptists, acted on the 
principles that controlled Mr. Kiffin, Baptist histo- 
rians would have had no occasion to cry persecu- 
tion. As matters were in those days of corruption 
and ignorance, that those wicked and filthy sects 
should be canonized as martys is sublimely ridicu- 
lous. There is a large field open before these Bap- 
tist w r riters, to bring out a book of martyrs, in which 
those sects they claim as Baptists were the agents in 
killing men, women, and children who were not of 
their party. Benedict stepped into it, but backed out 
as soon. He says: "The Paulicians put to death 
some of their clerical oppressors, and in union with 
those barbarians they infested the Grecian States; 
and, in conjunction with the Saracens, maintained 
a war with the Grecian nation for one hundred years. 
They w r ere utterly at variance with the peace princi- 
ples of most of the ancient sects, among whom the 
Baptists look for their denominational kindred." 
Yet they are claimed as Baptists! 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER V. 

BAPTIST historians claim the Anabaptists as 
their brethren, and laud their sufferings as 
persecutions for the cause of Christ. I have shown 
that one of their principal tenet3 was that civil mag- 
istrates were absolutely useless, and that they aimed 
at the overthrow of such functionaries. 

Mosheim represents them as a i; seditious and pes- 
tilential sect," " whose tumultuous and desperate at- 
tempts were equally pernicious to the cause of relig- 
ion and the civil interests of mankind." "And if 
their power had seconded their designs, would have 
involved all Switzerland, Holland, and Germany in 
tumult and bloodshed." 

Mosheim continues : " The civil magistrates, in 
these countries, had still before their eyes the enor- 
mities committed by the ancient Anabaptists ; and, 
besides, they could not persuade themselves that 
a set of men who looked upon all oaths as sinful, 
and declared that magistracy and penal laws have 
no place in the kingdom of Christ, had the qualities 
and sentiments that are necessary to constitute a 
good citizen." They were true-blue republicans, 
were they? 

Gregory, the historian : u They first made their 
appearance in the provinces of Upper Germany, 
where the severity of the magistrates kept them 



28 Baptist Pretensions. 

under control. To their peculiar notion concern- 
ing baptism they added other principles of a most 
enthusiastic as well as dangerous nature — that, as 
neither the laws of nature nor the precepts of the 
New Testament had imposed any restraints upon 
men with regard to the number of wives which 
they might marry, they should use that liberty. 
When their ears were once accustomed to this li- 
centious doctrine, and their passions inflamed with 
the prospect of such unbounded indulgence, he him- 
self (Matthias, their leader) set them an example of 
using what he called their Christian liberty by mar- 
rying at once three wives, and added to the number 
until they amounted to fourteen. After the example 
of their prophet, the multitude gave themselves up 
to the most licentious and uncontrolled gratification 
of their desires. Persons were appointed to search 
the houses for young women grown up to maturity, 
whom they instantly compelled to marry." "And 
made bold pretensions to inspiration." "At last, 
having secretly called in their associates from the 
neighboring country, they suddenly took possession 
of the arsenal and senate-house in the night, and, 
running through the streets, with drawn swords and 
horrible howlings, cried out, alternately, 4 Repent, 
and be baptized!' and, ' Depart, ye ungodly!'" 
" They pillaged the churches ; ordered the estates 
of such as fled to be confiscated and sold ; com- 
manded every man to bring forth his gold, silver, 
and other precious effects, and to lay them at his 
feet." "They established their dominion in Mini- 
ster about fifteen months, but, being overpowered 
by numbers, and surrounded on every hand, most 
of them were slain, and the remainder taken pris- 
oners. Together with its monarch, the kingdom of 
the Anabaptists came to an end." 

Baptists descended from them ! They form a 



Baptist History. 29 

long and important link in Mr. Ray's chain of 
"Baptist succession." 

At what other conclusion can we arrive than that 
which is true alike in philosophy and nature — that 
" like will beget like." " Tell me the company you 
keep, and I '11 tell you w T ho you are." If these Bap- 
tists have given us a true specimen of their attach- 
ment to " civil and religious freedom," I pray, 
"From such, good Lord, deliver us." It is stated 
by Baptists that our American liberty and our form 
of republican government were cradled in the Bap- 
tist Churches. They say, "Roger Williams was 
the first man openly and earnestly to urge a repub- 
lican form of government; and he was a Baptist; 
therefore, Baptists originated a free and independ- 
ent government." 

Professor T. F. Curtis, a Baptist author, says : 
" Of the millions of all denominations in this 
country who now enjoy so perfectly as we do the 
inestimable blessing of religious liberty, and of all 
those who, throughout Europe and the world, are 
advocating it in various degrees, few are aware how 
much they are indebted for these views and enjoy- 
ments to the Baptists; fewer still know r that this in- 
debtedness, such as it is, is not mere accident, but a 
necessary consequence of their distinctive peculiari- 
ties as a denomination. Roger Williams was the 
first Christian legislator who introduced perfect lib- 
erty into the constitution of any State. They are 
probably ignorant that the advocacy of this spirit- 
ual freedom is to be traced in connection with Bap- 
tist sentiments." (Progress, p. 19.) He goes on: 
"It was essentially a Baptist principle, derived by 
them, and by them alone, from their views of 
Church-membership." Again: "isTot a single Pe- 
dobaptist denomination held to the views now so 
universal in this country. Every one of them in 



80 Baptist Pretensions. 

turn had claimed and exercised the right to pro- 
mote religion by law, which involves a right to 
persecute all opponents." And again: "In every 
movement favorable to liberty of conscience and 
entire separation of Church and State, the Baptists 
took the lead." And now he reaches the height of 
arrogance and falsehood: "It was certainly the Bap- 
tist Churches of this country who were the first to 
suggest and to maintain those ideas of religious lib- 
erty, and of consequent limitations upon the power 
of the majority to interfere with the rights of the 
minority, which form some of the most sacred feat- 
ures of American liberty." 

I will now proceed to show that Baptist principles 
had nothing to do with it, but that liberty of con- 
science was promulged before there was even a 
Baptist Society in the Colonies. A party called 
Puritans, struggling and contending for this same 
principle of freedom of conscience, existed some 
eighty years prior to Roger Williams's coming to the 
Colonies. Mr. Bancroft says : " When Hooper, 
who had gone into exile in the latter years of 
Henry VIII., was appointed Bishop of Gloucester, 
he, for a time, refused to be consecrated in the vest- 
ments which the law required ; and his refusal marks 
the era when the Puritans first existed as a separate 
party. The precious spark of liberty had been kin- 
dled and was preserved by the Puritans alone." 

Alex. Campbell, "Debate with Rice," says: " This 
great man's stern and unbending integrity was the 
first occasion, rather than an actual cause, of our 
own glorious Revolution. He was, indeed, the 
grand prototype of that noble race of mighty men, 
the patriarchs of civil liberty, the original fathers 
of the illustrious sisterhood of American republics. 
Such was the man, Mr. President, who, with the im- 
mortal Rogers, of Smithfield memory, roasted in the 



Baptist History. 31 

fire of papal cruelty, gave the first grand impulse to 
the cause of liberty, civil and religious. At their 
smoldering embers was lit the torch of American 
liberty. From their altar was borne across the seas 
the sacred fire that has warmed and illuminated the 
Xew World, and given to us our free and liberal in- 
stitutions." 

Wilson's American History has it: "The Puri- 
tans brought with them, and established in the 
New World, important principles of civil liberty, 
which it would be unjust here to pass unnoticed. 
Before they effected a landing at Plymouth, they 
embodied these principles in a brief, simple, but 
comprehensive, compact, w T hich was to form the 
basis of their future government. In this instru- 
ment we have exhibited a perfect equality of rights 
and privileges. In the cabin of the 4 Mayflower' the 
Pilgrims met together as equals and as freemen, 
and, in the name of God, whom they worshiped, 
subscribed the first charter of liberty established in 
the New World, declaring themselves the source of 
all the laws that were to be exercised over them, and 
promising to the same due subjection and obedience. 
Here was laid the foundation of American liberty. 
A band of Puritans (not Baptists), dissenters from 
the Established Church of England, persecuted for 
their religious opinions, and seeking in a foreign 
land that liberty of conscience which their own 
country denied them, became the first colonists of 
Xew England." 

Mr. Benedict, speaking of Roger Williams, says : 
"All who have given any items of his history agree 
in asserting that in early life he was regularly ad- 
mitted to orders in the Church of England, and 
preached for some time as a minister of that 
Church. Possessing an ardent love for truth and 
liberty, he was led by his convictions to join the 



32 Baptist Pretensions. 

Puritans, and, like others of them, emigrated to 
New England, which had become famous abroad as 
the home of piety and freedom." "He arrived at 
Nantucket in February, 1631. In 1639 he was bap- 
tized (immersed) by Ezekiel Holliman, a layman, 
and appointed by the little company for the pur- 
pose ; then baptized (immersed) the rest of the 
company, and this laid the foundation for the first 
Baptist Church in Providence and on the American 
continent." 

Roger Williams did not leave his brethren in Mas- 
sachusetts to make a settlement in Providence, R. L, 
because of oppression. The trouble was, as Bene- 
dict says, "Versatility (changeableness) of character 
and fondness of novelty have been ascribed to Mr. 
Williams, not only by his opponents, but by some 
of his friends." "Acquired the name of being 'con- 
scientiously contentious.'" 

Archbishop Hughes claims in behalf of Lord Bal- 
timore, proprietor of Maryland, a Roman Catholic, 
this honor. It is said that, as early as 1632, he had 
recognized a general religious toleration. It was 
not until 1644 that Roger Williams obtained his 
charter from the king; and not adopted by the peo- 
ple until 1647. So, then, Maryland recognized re- 
ligious toleration fifteen years before Rhode Island. 
In 1682 William Perm published his "Frame of Gov- 
ernment." He carefully provided "that all persons 
who profess and acknowledge the Almighty shall in 
no ways be molested, nor compelled to frequent or 
maintain any religious worship." This was far in 
advance of the age generally — it was in advance of 
the Roger Williams platform. A religious revolu- 
tion, precisely on the same principles as the political 
one which followed, took place when Patrick Henry 
overthrew the established clergy in the " Parsons" 
cause; and the carrying of those resolutions against 



Baptist History. 33 

the Stamp Act was the turning-point of the question 
of revolution. 

Thomas Jefferson did more than most others to 
give a scientific and formal cast to the principles of 
liberty. And from the experiments and failures of 
the ancient Greek republics he unquestionably got 
many of the checks and balances of his opinions. 
Years before Roger Williams was born the Puritans 
struggled for this liberty, and signed, in the cabin of 
the "Mayflower," the first charter of liberty. How, 
then, can it be possible that we owe our civil and re- 
ligious liberties to Baptists? There was not a Bap- 
tist in the Colonies until 1639. It was not Roger 
Williams the Baptist, but Roger Williams the 
Puritan, who advocated the cause of liberty: but 
not even then until it had had precedence of him 
here for nearlv ei^htv vears, having been lit at the 
smoldering embers of Hooper and Rogers, in the 
plains of Smithfield. This gave the first impulse 
to the cause of liberty, civil and religious. We are 
not, then, indebted to Baptists for the idea, or hard 
struggling^ for our civil and religious liberties. 
2* 



BAPTIST HISTORY. 



NUMBER VI. 

MR. RAY'S "Baptist Succession," p. 229, says: 
"It is an interesting fact that the true idea of 
a free Constitution for the American Government 
was derived from the Baptists." And in proof of this 
silly and absurd pretension he continues, Rev. Dr. 
Fishbaek said, that Rev, Andrew Tribble said, that 
Mr. Jefferson said he was pleased with their Church- 
government, "and that he considered it the only 
form of pure democracy which then existed in the 
world, and had concluded that it would be the best 
plan of government for the American Colonies. 
This was several years before the Declaration of 
Independence. From this it appears that Air. Jef- 
ferson, the framer of the Constitution, gathered his 
idea of 'pure democracy' from a Baptist Church." 

In reply to these pretensions, I will say that there 
was no Baptist Church in the neighborhood of Mr. 
Jefferson previous to 1776, much less " eight or ten 
years before the American Revolution ;" and there is 
no evidence of the existence of a Baptist preacher 
in Virginia, by the name of "Rev. Andrew Trib- 
ble;" and hence Mr. Jefferson could not have at- 
tended such a Church. To make it appear that I 
am right, I will now give the history that will set- 
tle this question beyond a doubt. 

In "Encyclopedia Americana," vol. vii.,p. 181, we 



Baptist History. 35 

read: "Thomas Jefferson was born 1743, Shadwell, 
Albemarle county, Virginia; entered the college of 
William and Mary; then studied law under Geo. 
Wythe, by whom, in 1767, in the 24th year of his 
age, he was introduced to its practice, at the bar of 
the General Court of the Colony, at w T hich he con- 
tinued until the Revolution. In 1769 he was elected 
a member of the Provincial Legislature from the 
county where he resided. In 1775 he took his seat, 
for the first time, in Congress; the next year the 
delegates from Virginia, in compliance with the in- 
structions, moved that Congress should declare the 
United Colonies free and independent States; and 
a committee was appointed to prepare a declaration 
of independence, consisting of John Adams, Dr. 
Franklin, Roger Sherman, R. R. Livingston, and 
Mr. Jefferson.' ' Here w 7 e have a plain view of Mr. 
Jefferson's whereabouts from the year 1743 to 1776. 
He was in Albemarle county, attending courts in 
the district, and in the service of his country. 

Now let us turn to the history of the Baptist 
Church in Virginia, and see if there was a Baptist 
Church in Albemarle county, or within one hun- 
dred miles of it, previous to this period of time. 

Mr. Benedict, the Baptist historian, says, p. 641: 
"According to Morgan Edward's list for 1768, there 
were then but about ten Baptist Churches in all 
parts of Virginia." "¥e cannot learn that any of 
the original settlers of Virginia were Baptists, nor 
do we find any of this denomination in this country 
until more than a century after its settlement. In 
1714 Robert Nordin, from England, gathered a 
Church in Isle of Wight county. In 1729, a Rev. 
Paul Palmer named one as being in Surry county, 
which was never heard of before or since! In 1756 
the Church in Isle of Wight went down. From 
1743 to 1756, three Churches were gathered in the 



36 Baptist Pretensions. 

counties of Berkeley and Loudoun. In 1762, com- 
menced preaching in Fauquier county ; and between 
1770 and 1780 commenced preaching in the North- 
ern Neck; and still later in Greenbrier, and west of 
the Alleghany." He adds: " The first appearance 
of the denomination is this country excited no alarm ; 
most of their converts were from that class of people 
who were of but a small account in society; their 
preachers were generally illiterate; their assemblies 
and their efforts were in places remote and, obscure." 

The Jefferson family were wealthy, intelligent, 
and resided among some of the first families of 
Virginia. Thomas, at twelve years of age, had be- 
stowed upon him "every means of knowledge that 
could be procured, and by his father left a consid- 
erable estate." He completed his education at 
"William and Mary College; studied law, and prac- 
ticed at the bar of the General Court of the Colony. 
In the four volumes of his posthumous works, there 
are abundant materials to guide the literary or his- 
torical critic in forming an estimate of his powers. 
In 1781 he wrote his " Notes on Virginia;" and 
also various essays on political and philosophical 
subjects; and a "Manual of Parliamentary Prac- 
tice." So, then, if the Baptist writers named above 
be correct — viz.: "Mr. Jefferson gathered his idea 
of pure democracy from a Baptist Church " — we must 
infer that he also gathered his ideas given to the 
world in his writings from "a class of people of a 
small account in society, and illiterate preachers, 
living in places remote and obscure." 

Papists say that ignorance is the mother of devo- 
tion ; but these Baptist authors have it that igno- 
rance was the mother of "pure democracy !" Just 
as sure a3 Mr. Benedict speaks the truth, so sure is 
it that there never was "a small Baptist Church 
near Mr. Jefferson's residence," as stated. 



Baptist History. 37 

The only places Mr. Benedict could find Baptist 
Churches were in Isle of Wight county, which soon 
died out; and the Church in Berkeley county soon 
"was broken up." And between 1770 and 1780, a 
young man preached in the Northern Neck; and 
one other in 1777 in Greenbrier county. Not an 
intimation of "a small Baptist Church" tn, or near, 
the county of Albemarle ! This county was not 
one of Mr. Benedict's "places remote and obscure," 
w T ith "that class of people who were of but a small 
account in society." There was no Baptist Church 
in Mr. Jefferson's neighborhood previous to 1776. 
Suppose there had been such a one as Mr. Benedict 
found in Virginia, in those days, we cannot under- 
stand how such a trashy and ignorant class of people 
could suggest to Mr. Jefferson's mind such intelli- 
gent ideas that "gave liberty to a continent!" 

Mr. Ray says : "This is no idle dream." Yes, call 
it a dream; for it would require hard words to call 
it by its right name. Mr. Kay quotes from Joseph 
Belcher's "Religious Denominations," which says: 
"Many of the Baptists are of opinion," etc., "and 
tell us that the late Rev. Dr. Fishback, of Lex- 
ington, Ky., a few years since, made the following 
statement, which he received from the late Rev. 
A. Tribble," etc. — strange to tell, on no higher 
authority than this unfounded hearsay testimony, 
Professor Curtis and Elder Ray should be induced 
to publish to the world, with a flourish, "It is an 
interesting fact that the true idea of a free Consti- 
tution for the American Government was derived 
from the Baptist Church !" 

"An interesting fact!" Shame, shame on you, 
gentlemen ! Examine all the facts of history in 
this matter, and you will be compelled to acknowl- 
edge that "the opinion of many of the Baptists" 
is without foundation. 



38 Baptist Pretensions. 

The Constitution of the United States and the 
political economy of the American Government, as 
framed and enforced by Mr. Jefferson, are well un- 
derstood by my readers; hence, I will not occup} 7 
their time in dwelling on those points. But let us 
give attention to the constitution and government 
of the Baptist Churches, that you may look at them 
and see if you can find one point of resemblance 
between them and that of our country, as taught 
by Mr. Jefferson in his publications, or connected 
with the political history of our country. Here is 
the place in the history of facts, to ascertain whether 
or not "Mr. Jefferson gathered his idea of pure 
democracy from a small Baptist Church." In what 
is there the least resemblance between the polity of 
the American Government and that of the Baptist 
Church? There never was, and is not, the slight- 
est. Notwithstanding the pretensions concerning 
liberty and republicanism, yet there are none more 
dictatorial than the Baptist Churches. When any 
one makes application to join them, they do not 
allow the said applicant any liberty of choice in his 
baptism. You must be immersed. It makes no 
difference whether the person has been baptized 
before by some other orthodox minister or not; 
whether satisfied or not with that baptism, he has 
to submit to a rebaptism to satisfy their dictatorial 
spirit. They have as effectually determined this 
matter for you as Roman Catholics have any of 
their dogmas for their subjects. They say, " You 
must not choose in this matter; we will do this for 
you." So of the Lord's Supper. They dictate to 
all their members, and say with whom they may, and 
shall not, commune. Is this "pure democracy?" 
Is it leaving their members free to say what they 
shall do in the premises, when an opportunity is 
offered them by other Churches to commune? 



Baptist History. 39 

They are not free to do so, for fear of expulsion. 
They say others are not baptized, and hence it is 
wrong to commune with them. Is not this speak- 
ing as dictatorially as any pope in Rome has ever 
spoken? They say to their members, "You shall 
not take the Lord's Supper with anybody except 
Baptists; if you do you will certainly be cited to 
appear before the Church to answer for your sin." 
Is this the "pure democracy" of which they so 
much boast? Thus are their members held in serv- 
ile subjection to their dogmatic pretensions, under 
fear of degradation by expulsion. 

Again : When a person joins them, there is no 
way of getting out from them but by death or ex- 
pulsion. Not allowed even to withdraw I It is con- 
trary to Baptist usage to allow their members to 
join any other Church. Should the bearer of a 
certificate join any other than a Baptist Church, he 
stands charged before the Church, and should he 
continue in his recreant way, he being charged, 
must be excelled I This is Baptist "pure democ- 
racy!" They cannot deny these things. Do they 
look like civil and religious toleration or liberty? 
Suppose persons in other Churches, who had been 
baptized by themselves, were to present themselves 
at the communion-table, would Baptists give them 
the sacrament? They would not. Why not? They 
have been regularly immersed. Ah ! " They are 
out of order " — not members of the Baptist Church ! 
Believe as they believe, do as they do, choose as 
they choose, then you are in a state of glorious 
liberty — Baptist "pure democracy!" 

Last, but not least, the Baptists tell us that in 
their Churches they do not carry up appeals from 
one court to another. They consider this an excel- 
lence in their Church-government; but our civil 
government, the very best in the world, is managed 



40 Baptist Pretensions. 

on very different principles. I presume no intelli- 
gent citizen of these United States would be willing 
to give up his right of appeal from the lower courts 
to the court of appeals. 

The people called Campbellites, contrary to Mr. 
Campbell's views, have followed the Baptists in this 
defect. Mr. Campbell says : " The right of prayer 
is not more natural, nor necessary, than the right 
of appeal. There is no government, or State, or 
family, that can subsist without it. It was a part 
of every religious institution before the Christian ; 
and if it be no part of it, it is a perfect anomaly in 
all social institutions." (Harbinger, New Series, 
vol. v., p. 64.) In this the right of appeal is de- 
clared to be both clear and absolutely necessary to 
the existence of the Church. In the Baptist Church, 
there is no ecclesiastical tribunal to which their 
members, when suffering injustice, can appeal. 
They enjoy not the right of appeal, though as clear 
as the right of prayer, and essential to the existence 
of the Church. 

What would be the condition of our country if 
there were no courts above that of magistrate ? 
According to the principles on which the Baptist 
Churches proceed, any little Church of a dozen 
members, or less, males and females, girls, boys, 
and servants, are to sit in judgment on the char- 
acter of a minister, or a layman, who has his or 
her membership among them ! His character is 
injured, his usefulness destroyed, and he has no 
remedy ! A man of the highest standing may be 
deprived of his dearest rights and privileges by half 
a dozen uninformed or prejudiced persons. There 
never was any thing in the Baptist usages that 
would suggest to any man an idea of liberty or re- 
publicanism ; but it strikes every intelligent man 
that there is none more dictatorial. 



BAPTIST SUCCESSION. 



NUMBER I. 

I HAVE in the Christian Advocate given two arti- 
cles on this subject. I have received letters from 
some of our preachers approving of the notice I have 
taken of Mr. Ray's book, and wishing me to give 
the subject still farther notice, believing it will do 
good; expressing the opinion that if this book should 
be permitted to pass unnoticed by us, it would do 
harm. 

I will notice his views on this question, and he 
may sustain them, if he can. I indulge no unkind 
feelings toward Mr. Ray, or our Baptist friends — not 
in the least. I am too nearly related to many of 
these good people for that. I have two uncles and 
four cousins preachers in that Church, and I have 
many highly esteemed friends in that Church; but, 
then, it will prove a blessing to their souls, I trust, 
to have the errors of the Succession party reproved. 
And it will be seen I am correcting Mr. Ray's unkind 
and unjust attacks upon the Methodist Church. 
These two Churches ought to be friendly. 

It is a prevailing custom of some Baptists, in all 
their preaching, conversation, and writings, to lay 
claim to a "Baptist succession/' declaring all others 
" aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no 
hope, and without God in the world." Such a 



42 Baptist Pretensions. 

course may well befit the Dark Ages, and " Babylon 
the great, the mother of harlots." "The temple of 
the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we, and heathens 
all besides," is the climax of bigotry and consummate 
folly. 

It is strange that any one enlightened by the Holy 
Spirit should be inclined to discard from the pale 
of God's Church all who do not act and think as 
they do. 

This "Baptist succession" idea is all "for Bun- 
combe." In this, it is astonishing what an influence 
s exerted over the uninformed. 

Again, as clap-trap, they claim John the Baptist 
as their great ancestor. Thus, for instance, " He is 
not John the Episcopalian, John the Presbyterian, 
or John the Methodist, but John the Baptist." Now, 
as silly and foolish as this is, there are thousands 
who believe that he stands as the great original copy 
of the Baptist Churches, because he is styled "John 
the Baptist." And hence he baptized by immer- 
sion ! 

Mr. Orchard, a Baptist historian, sets out in this 
succession work by claiming John the Baptist as 
the first Baptist, and says: "The way of John's ad- 
ministering the ordinance occasioned his being 
called the Baptist. The word Baptist was given to 
express the act of John in administering the ordi- 
nance." 

And Mr. Ray says, p. 169: "It was the custom of 
the old English writers to use the word baptized 
where w r e use the word Baptist. So we have the 
historic fact that these early Churches were Baptist 
Churches." This is a short way of settling a con- 
troversy. Suppose I am called L). B. Ray, will that 
fact make me Mr. Ray in reality? 

And Mr. Orchard says, "This term, left by the 
Holy Spirit, without translating, is the only script- 



Baptist Succession. 43 

ural cognomen for that sacrament;" and yet, after 
the Holy Spirit has left this word without translat- 
ing it, he translates it by the word "immerse." If 
Baptist, or baptize, is "the only scriptural cogno- 
men" for baptism, it follows that immerse is not. 

All this amounts to just the following: "Baptist" 
means an immerser; baptize means to immerse; and 
"in Jordan" means "immersion." So, when put 
together, reads, "John the immerser immersed im- 
mersion." "John the dipper dipped dipping! " 

If you think I do not do justice to our Baptist 
friends, I wish you to ask a Baptist pastor if Bap- 
tist means immerser, and if baptize means immerse, 
and then if "in Jordan" does not signify immersion, 
and he will satisfy you that I am correct. 

In this way they try to make their first link in the 
chain of succession. 

Now, no intelligent reader will believe that "John 
the Baptist" was called such because he immersed, 
or that he immersed at all. True, Baptists contend 
that baptize means dip, and dip only, while lexicog- 
raphers all agree that it means quite a variety of 
ideas. So Dr. Carson, a Baptist, admits: "What 
can baptism be but an operation of the same nature 
with sinking or diving, which are used here as 
nearly synonymous terms with that which signifies 
to baptize." Now apply this dip creed to the word 
of God. 

"Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink 
of, and to be dipped with the dipping that I shall be 
dipped with?" "In those days came John the dip- 
per, immerser, plunger, diver, sinker, drowner." 
Reader, just take any one of these, and if you can 
abide such " trantalization " of the the word of God, 
you are welcome to its beauty. 

Dr. Carson says, pp. 336-339, "A person may 
be in Jordan, and not in water at all" — supposes 



44 Baptist Pretensions. 

John did not go into the water; and "it is not es- 
sential to the ordinance of baptism" for the admin- 
istrator to go into water. 

The reader will see in the foregoing that their 
pretension of being derived from John the Baptist, 
as the first link in the chain, is without the shadow 
of truth. "We now turn to another pretension of 
theirs. 

Mr. Orchard says: "Our design is to trace and 
record the existence and practice of those Christian 
Societies which scripturally administered the ordi- 
nance, and this we hope to do, from the Jewish Jor- 
dan to the British Thames." 

Dr. Brown, D. C. Haynes, Prof. Duncan, and 
others, from whom Mr. Pay fixed up a " Hand-book 
of Baptist History," all join Mr. Orchard to see him 
safe through in this difficult undertaking. 

Yet there are some of their most learned and in- 
fluential divines who oppose such assumptions and 
pretensions. Benedict, p. 51, says: " This is a kind 
of succession to which we have never laid claim, 
and, of course, we make no effort to prove it. We 
place no kind of reliance on this sort of testimony 
to establish the soundness of our faith, or the valid- 
ity of our administrations." 

A Baptist writer in the Christian Review, of 1855, 
says : " We must say that we know of no assumption 
more arrogant, and more destitute of proper historic 
support, than that which claims to be able to trace 
the distinct and unbroken existence of a Church 
substantially Baptist from the times of the apostles 
down to our own." 

I can add many more of the first standing in the 
Baptist ministry on this side of the question ; such 
as John Bunyan, Pobert Hall, J. Foster, the two 
Haldanes, Dr. Carson, Dr. Waylancl, Baptist W. 
Noel, and many others, of the noblest spirits and 



Baptist Succession. 45 

brightest lights in that Church, whose names are 
fadeless in the annals of Christianity, who deny that 
baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to sacra- 
mental communion. 

I will give a few extracts from them, and if any 
one should be doubted, I will give the book and 
page. " How can they so value the rite of baptism, 
as to repel from their communion those who have 
the faith and devotedness which the rite expresses, 
and not suffer by it? At least, they must be much 
tempted to overvalue the form of religion, and to 
undervalue the reality, to 'pay tithe of mint and 
anise and cummin, and to omit the weightier mat- 
ters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith ? ' This 
exclusion of holy men seems a palpable disregard to 
the work of the Spirit in Pedobaptists, tempts Bap- 
tists to overvalue themselves on account of baptism, 
and, if it impairs the spiritual^ of the Church, 
must hinder the conversion of sinners/' " They 
maj r , like Enoch, walk with God ; like Abraham, sac- 
rifice all to serve him ; like Moses, trample under foot 
the world's most all uring bribes ; like Paul, consecrate 
noble faculties with untiring ardor to the cause of 
their Eedeemer; and yet, because they are Pedobap- 
tists, 3 t ou will exclude them from the table of their 
Lord." "This cannot be right." "When you say 
that baptism has been held by all denominations to 
be a term of communion, either you are no Baptist 
or your assertion is true." "In no age, and by no 
denomination, except the Close-communion Baptists 
of modern times, has the want of an immersional 
profession of Christianity been considered a barrier 
to the Lord's-table." "It is perfectly ridiculous to 
see any one attempting to show that a 'Pedobaptist 
Church is no home for a Baptist,' when a Close- 
communion Church, as such, ought to be a home 
for no Christian." "Present indications show that 



46 Baptist Pretensions. 

the strong tide of feeling which for years past has 
been increasing against it cannot much longer be 
successfully kept back." 

This expression of opinion, by the great lights of 
the Baptist Church, is stirring up such lesser lights 
as Mr. Ray, who must sustain, by any means, the 
" clap-trap " Baptist succession. 

I might here close this investigation, till these 
Baptist warriors, now in the field, decide upon these 
matters, which must divide and break up their or- 
ganization, did they not keep up cruel and unjust 
attacks upon the Methodists. 

I will now proceed to notice their pretensions to 
antiquity. I will change the order of things with 
Mr. Ray, who says, "From the shores of America, we 
have followed the foot-prints of the Baptist denom- 
ination, back to the land of Judea, in the apostolic 
age ! " while his brother, Orchard, " designed to trace 
and record the existence and practice of those Chris- 
tian Societies which scripturally administered the 
ordinance, and this we hope to do, from the Jewish 
Jordan to the British Thames." 

Mr. Ray went up with his "Baptist denomination; " 
Mr. Orchard came down with his " Christian Socie- 
ties." Here, then, is a beautiful beginning! A 
Baptist historian in Judea finds Christian Societies; 
another Baptist historian in America finds a "Bap- 
tist denomination," and tries to carry it back to 
Judea! Well, I will go a little back of either of 
these historians' line of succession, as approved by 
Elder Haynes. 

The Montanists are there claimed as the first in 
the regular line of succession from the apostles. 
Mr. Haynes says they "were Baptists; " which, says 
he, "is "evident from the fact that Tertullian joined 
them, and became eminent among them. "Ter- 
tullian joined them ! " and this makes them Baptists ! 



Baptist Succession. 47 

Well, well, how sharp! Mr. Benedict, p. 4, calls 
them' "Dissenters;" Mr. Orchard, p. 66, "That he 
(Montanus) declared himself a mortal enemy of phi- 
losophy and religion." Is he a Baptist? 

Dr. Brown, a Baptist, says "the Montanists were 
a sect which sprung up about the year 171 ; he [Mon- 
tanus] embraced Christianity in hopes of rising to 
the dignities of the Church. He pretended to in- 
spiration, and gave out that the Holy Ghost had in- 
structed him in several points which had not been 
revealed to the apostles." Is he a Baptist? 

He was joined by two women, Priscilla and Max- 
imilla, who pretended to the same inspiration. 

" Finding themselves exposed to the censure of the 
whole Church, they formed a schism, and set up a 
distinct Society, under the direction of those who 
called themselves prophets." Were they Baptists? 

"These sectarians denied the doctrine of the 
Trinity; but held that the Holy Spirit made Mon- 
tanus his organ for delivering a more perfect form 
of discipline than what was delivered by his apos- 
tles. They suffered women to preach and to bap- 
tize." Were they Baptists? 

"They dissolved marriages and condemned second 
marriages." Were they Baptists? 

"According to Robinson, the practice of infant 
baptism originated with this sect." Were they 
Baptists? 

They baptized in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Montanus, or Priscilla, or Maximilla." Were 
they Baptists? If so, then, and in that event, the 
Baptists of these days, to be consistent, baptize in 
the name of the Father, the Son, and D. B. Bay! 

Mosheim says, "They are a sect in which igno- 
rance reigned, and which was the mortal enemy of 
philosophy and letters. Formed by an obscure man, 
without any capacity or strength of judgment; was 



48 Baptist Pretensions. 

foolish and extravagant enough to suppose himself 
the Comforter, which the Saviour promised to send, 
and lead them into .all truth." Was he a Baptist? 

He calls him "an enthusiast,' ' an " ignorant fa- 
natic." "And, by the unanimous voice of the 
Church, solemnly separated from the body of the 
faithful." "Hence, he erected a new Church." 

Elder Haynes says, " It should be remarked that, in 
forming the connection between the New Testament 
Baptists and the Montanists, a period of only fifty 
years is unprovided for." Well, then, that is a long 
link out of the chain. What will you do in this 
case, Mr. Ray? I understood your caution in this 
matter, when I read your book; you did not touch 
this corrupt sect, but commenced with the Novatians 
over one hundred years from the apostles! And, 
notwithstanding his distance from the apostolic age, 
yet he says, "I went back to the apostles, in the 
land of Judea! " 

It is candidly confessed by Mr. Haynes that there 
is a period of fifty years unprovided for. And Mr. 
Ray implicitly confesses that there is over one hun- 
dred years unprovided for. 

So, out of their own mouths we condemn them, 
and show the fallacy of all their boasted glorying of 
a regular succession. 



BAPTIST SUCCESSION. 



NUMBER II. 

NEXT come the Novatians, who took their rise 
about A.D. 250. Mr. Orchard says, "One 
Novatian, a presbyter in the Church of Rome, 
strongly opposed the readmission of apostates," 
and that he "was the first to begin a separate in- 
terest." "There was no difference in point of 
doctrine between the Novatians and other Chris- 
tians." 

Benedict, Haynes, Jones, Mosheim, all say Nova- 
tian was an elder in the Church of Rome, and with- 
drew from it. 

When Cornelius was elected bishop instead of 
Kovatian, "jSTovatian, upon this, separated himself 
from the jurisdiction of Cornelius." Whereupon 
he and his partisans were cut off from the Church. 
Did this make Baptists of them ? " This turbulent 
man, being thus excommunicated, erected a new So- 
ciety, of which he was the first bishop." Is this the 
way to make Baptists ? " They assumed the title of 
Cathari, or the Pure; and, what showed a still more 
extravagant degree of vanity and arrogance, they 
obliged such as came over to them from the general 
body of Christians to submit to be baptized a sec- 
ond time, as a necessary preparation for entering 
into their Society," and considered the baptism in 
other Churches as null and void. Some things in 
3 



50 Baptist Pretensions. 

this look very much like a Baptist; but then this 
crumb of comfort is dashed away when we read 
"that Novatian was baptized by pouring," and 
that, too, by a layman, and did tfot submit to re- 
baptism himself! Now, take a view of this link in 
the chain, and does the case of Novatian look very 
Baptistic ? 

Mr. Haynes says, "It forms an exception to their 
general rule." Here, then, is an exception to the 
rule, by your own admission, and this one excep- 
tion overthrows all your boasted theory of a regu- 
lar line, or chain, of succession. Verily, this is a 
great humbug, to humbug the illiterate. 

Mr. Ray says, " The proof is positive that the No- 
vatians, in every element of Church-organization, 
were Baptists, and descended from the primitive 
apostolic Churches." I give this statement to show 
how reckless a writer Mr. Bay is. Where is the 
proof of any sort? He does not mean what he 
says — it is simply a rayish way of expressing him- 
self, with a design to deceive. He says, " The 
proof is positive, in every element of Church-or- 
ganization, they .were Baptists." His unsuspecting 
readers really suppose "the proof positive" is that 
the Novatians were Baptists, when he does not say 
so, but only wishes to make that false impression. 
The proof has reference to the " elements of 
Church-organization." Hence, thej^ must see that 
the point in controversy is, Were the "elements of 
Church-organization " among the JSTovatians such 
as those of the Baptists of these days? — not that the 
Baptists and ISTovatians were one and the same "de- 
nomination" of Christians. 

This way of investigating Church-resemblances 
will not do. Look at it: the Baptists and Roman 
Catholics have in common many of the funda- 
mental doctrines of Christianity, hence " the proof 



Baptist Succession. 51 

is positive" that "in every element of Church-or- 
ganization " the Roman Catholics were Baptists ! 
The Mormons have many of the " elements of 
Church-organization" — they baptize by immer- 
sion — hence the Baptists are Mormons! Or, a 
rattlesnake has a bell, and a cow has a bell, hence 
"the proof is positive" that the cow is a rattle- 
snake ! That is rayish ! 

As foolish and arrogant as is this claim to a Bap- 
tist succession, this is the nature of the logic and 
" proof positive" by which Mr. Ray "rejoiceth in 
that which is false." 

The ]S"ovatians were not Baptists, and we find 
none in those days. 

The Donatists are claimed to be the next link in 
the chain. They derived their name from one Do- 
natus, an African bishop. This sect arose about 
A.D. 311. They seceded from the Church. Mos- 
heim (Ch. His., cent, iv.) says, " It was a new and 
much formidable faction started up in Africa, 
which, though it arose from small beginnings, 
afflicted most grievously both Church and State for 
more than a century." Were they Baptists? 
"These unhappy commotions gave rise, no doubt, 
to a horrible confederacy of desperate ruffians who 
passed under the name of Circumcelliones. This 
furious, fearless, and bloody set of men, composed 
of the rough and savage populace who embraced 
the party of the Donatists, maintained their cause 
by the force of arms, and overrunning all Africa, 
filled that province with slaughter and rapine, and 
committed the most enormous acts of perfidy and 
cruelty against the followers of Csecilianus." Were 
these Baptists ? 

Who baptized Donatus, and how was he baptized? 
The facts and the proofs must be given before we 
concede the presumptions and pretensions set up. 



52 Baptist Pretensions. 

Donatus was a minister in the Church — he broke 
off, and set up a new party. Was this right in the 
estimation of Baptists ? If so, were not the Prot- 
estant denominations also right? Donatus was a 
schismatic, set up a new Church; and yet he is 
held up as being in the regular line of descent from 
John the Baptist ! Wonder if John ever baptized 
anybody that baptized Donatus ! This must be 
made to appear. Who has ever tried to do so? 
Benedict says, pp. 60, 61, "Some were accused of 
rejecting infant baptism, yet it is by no means im- 
probable that a portion of them held on to the sys- 
tem. " Mr. Orchard says, " The Donatists did not 
differ from the Catholics in doctrine." Mark these 
admissions of Baptists. Dr. Wall says, "But it 
would be withal a very strange discovery, since 
there are so many books extant, written at the 
same time, by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, 
etc., containing a ventilation of all disputes be- 
tween the Catholics and those men, in which noth- 
ing has ever been observed that should intimate 
that they had an} 7 such practice or opinion ; for 
among all the reasons that the Donatists give why 
the baptism of the Catholics was null, there is none 
that lays any blame on their giving it in infancy; 
but, on the contrary, St. Austin does often make 
use of the instance of infant baptism, as granted by 
them, to overthrow some other errors that they had 
about baptism." Vol. ii., pp. 129, 130. 

So, then, the Donatists practiced infant baptism, 
and were not Baptists. 

We are now 311 years after the apostolic times, 
and 482 years of the Christian era, and have exam- 
ined four pretended links in the Baptist chain of 
succession, and feel confident the candid reader will 
agree with me when I say there is not the slightest 
appearance of such a connection. 



Baptist Succession. 53 

The next link in the chain of Baptist succession 
is found in the Paulicians. 

Mr. Haynes says. "This sect appeared about 
A. P. 6-33. in Greece." Mr. Benedict says, "They 
r a very important company of Greek Dissent- 
ers." Mr. Orchard says. "It was a new sect arose 
in the East under the name of Paulicians."' Dr. 
Brown calls them "a body of Greek Protestant 
Dissenters." 

From these Baptist historians we learn that the 
licians were Protestant Dissenters, a new sect 
ag up in the Greek Church. The reader 
will bear in mind that the Baptists will not admit 
that they are Dissenters, Protestants, sects, etc., for 
38 they themselves were not the first 
Church. What will Mr. Pay do with the admis- 
sions of these historians? They slaughter all he 
. in his book. Who baptized the founder 
the Paulicians? Come. Mr. Ray. prove up your 
line of baptism through this sect. This has not 
been done, and here is another link broken, and 
the chain worthless. 

Mark here the tangent. The other sects we have 
as claimed by them broke off from the 
ireh of Rome — this sect from the Greek 
Church ; the one from the Eastern, the other from 
the Western, Church. Strange that things so oppo- 
site should prove a matter requiring a direct line of 
argument and facts. Jordan is east and west, and 
everywhere, if needed, to sustain this t; baseless fab- 
:f a vision. ,; Mosheim says, " They deny that 
the world is the production of the Supreme Being;" 
nsidered eternal matter as the seat and source of 
all evil; that this matter, endued from all eternity 
with life and motion, had produced an active prin- 
ciple, which was the fountain of vice, misery, and 
disorder/'" " Thev refused to celebrate the holv in- 



54 Baptist Pretensions. 

stitution of the Lord's Supper." "They rejected 
the Old Testament, regarding the authors of those 
books as inspired by the Creator of this world, and 
not by the Supreme God." Were they Baptists? 

But I have not room for the many errors and cor- 
ruptions of this sect — so corrupt that, if I could see 
that the Baptists received their baptism from them, 
I would not receive the ordinances of the Church 
at their hands. Are there such errors and corrup- 
tions among the Roman Catholics ? Yet Paulicians 
are Baptists, are they ? But this link in the chain 
is gone — no appearance of such a chain of links. 

Our Baptist Successionists claim the Paterines as 
a part of this chain. Their date is set down by his- 
torians from the tenth to the thirteenth century. 
They went by different names, such as Manicheans, 
Cathari, Josephists, and Pasagins. See Benedict, 
pp. 16, 17. They are called " Dissenters " from the 
Church of Rome. " They rejected baptism as of no 
importance; and also rejected the Lord's Supper." 
Their religious principles were about the same as 
the Paulicians last examined. Mosheim, cent, 
xii. chap. v. Orchard's History, pp. 156, 157, 
shows clearly that the Paterines originated in the 
Roman Church, and endeavored to reform it. 
They may be styled Reformers. But Mr. Ray says 
the Baptists never were reformers, inasmuch as he 
claims to be older than all other Churches. Can he 
claim the Paterines, who separated from the Roman 
Church? Where did they derive their baptism? 
Come, tell us who first baptized the Paterines? 
Did yours come from them ? If so, then does not 
your baptism come through corrupt Romanism ? 
You cannot escape this conclusion. There is no 
Baptist succession found yet, though we are 945 
years from the starting-place. 

The Arnoldists are claimed as a regular link in 



Baptist Succession. 55 

their chain of succession. They take their name 
from Arnold, who is canonized by the Baptists be- 
cause " he was crucified, and afterward burned to 
ashes/' Mosheim informs us that it was not for his 
religion he suffered, but for his conduct. " He was 
as criminal as he was imprudent." " This violent 
reformer was also of a turbulent and impetuous 
spirit, and excited new troubles and commotions, 
both in Church and State." "And raised in Rome 
several tumults and seditions among the people, 
who changed, by his instigations, the government 
of the city." Was this man a Baptist? 

I leave the reader to his own reflections upon this 
link in the Baptist chain, merely asking him how he 
likes it, and what he thinks of being in this line of 
popish descent — for popish it is. 

I have now reached the Waldenses, who took 
their rise A.D. 1450. The Waldenses are great 
favorites with the Baptists. Mosheim represents 
this people as being Dissenters from and Reform- 
ers of the Church of Rome. (Cent, xii., part ii., 
chap, v., sees, xi., xii.) Agreeably to this are 
the admissions of Baptists of no mean note. Dr. 
Brown says, " They were the most celebrated body 
of Protestant Dissenters during the Middle Ages." 
Mr. Jones says, "In the first, they were Dissenters 
— Protestant Dissenters — Dissenters upon principle, 
not only from the Church of Rome, but also from 
all national establishments of religion." Mr. Ben- 
edict calls them "the largest and most important 
branch of all Dissenters and Protestants in the 
Dark Ages." 

If they were Dissenters and Protestants, it follows 
that those from v/hom they dissented, and against 
whom they protested, were older than. they. And 
take another statement of Baptists as true, and it 
will ruin them — that is, it is held by some of them 



56 Baptist Pretensions. 

that Claude, Bishop of Turin, in the ninth century, 
was their first pastor. A bishop in another Church 
pastor of the Waldenses? 

Infant baptism was practiced among them. The 
Baptists would make you believe, if they could, 
that such a practice was altogether unknown among 
them. Mr. Benedict, a Baptist, says : "Although 
some at least of all parties of these ancient Dis- 
senters, as we shall soon see, were so often accused 
of rejecting infant baptism, yet it is by no means 
improbable that a portion of them held on to the 
system after renouncing most of the ceremonies of 
the Church of Rome. That some of them rejected 
infant baptism, and that others held on to the sys- 
tem, is as clear to my mind as that they were all 
persecuted by the Church of Borne. " 

Look at this. Here is a people in the Church of 
Borne — and came out of it. Now, was not this 
their beginning? How sublimely absurd to con- 
tend that the Waldenses were a part of a line of re- 
ligious " denominations " from the apostles to the 
Baptists in America! Mr. Tombes, another Bap- 
tist, confirms the statements above given from Ben- 
edict; and Mr. D'Anvers agrees with both. Mr. 
Perrin, an historian of the Waldenses, and was one 
of them, says they were slandered by a report put 
in possession of King Louis XIL, that they " de- 
nied to little infants baptism/' He explained the 
causes of occasional delay : 1. Sometimes the proper 
persons to present the little ones were not conven- 
ient, or in circumstances to attend to it. 2. That 
Catholic priests required that the people — Walden- 
ses, too — should have this done by them. But the 
Waldenses preferred their own pastors should at- 
tend to it; but their absence from home compelled 
them to defer the baptism of their children some- 
times. 



Baptist Succession. 57 

The king, having been informed by the enemies 
of the Waldenses, sent to make inquiry. They 
visited all the Churches, and found nothing wrong, 
and that they " caused their children to be baptized 
according to the order of the primitive Church, 
teaching them the articles of the Christian faith 
and the commandments of God." And he adds, 
we receive the Lord's Supper "to show what our 
perseverance in the faith is, as we have promised 
when we were baptized, being little infants." 

Here, then, you can understand why it is reported 
that the Waldenses refused baptism to infants. 
This slanderous report was used in Mr. Perrin's 
day against them, and is used by the Baptists to 
this day. Why, kind reader, in many portions of 
this country, in this our day, we hear it published 
that the Methodists refuse baptism to infants — they 
have given it up. In a hundred years from this, for 
aught I can see, it may be contended that we are in 
the Baptist succession : this will be fully established 
then should there be any rayish logic among the Bap- 
tists. Mr. Benedict says, "No writer on our side 
should lay claim to all who passed under the gen- 
eral name of Waldenses, Albigenses, Paterines, Pi- 
cards, etc." So I say, and insist on it, that our Bap- 
tist brethren drop these arrogant assumptions, and 
abide by the teachings of God's word. This regular 
descent from the apostles is all a humbug. The 
present Waldenses, the posterity of the old ones, 
do practice infant baptism, and they say that their 
fathers never practiced otherwise — and gave proofs 
of it to the Protestants in Luther's day, from an old 
book of theirs, called the "Spiritual Almanac," 
where infant baptism is owned, So, then, this link 
in the chain is broken, and their boasting of being 
descendants of the Waldenses is unfounded. " Wal- 
denses are Baptists !" Do Baptists baptize infants ? 



BAPTIST SUCCESSION. 



NUMBER III. 

I WILL now examine the case of the Anabap- 
tists and Mennonites. Of this case the Baptists 
do not know what to say or do. They will claim 
them, and then they will not. Orchard, Baptist 
historian, ignores the Anabaptists of the times of 
the Reformation; and yet, on the same pages, he 
hugs them to his bosom, and rejoices in their de- 
scent from them. He says : " The Anabaptists and 
Baptists are as different as possible." Mark that. 
Then, again, he quotes approvingly and triumph- 
antly from Mosheim, concerning this very people. 
" The true origin -of that sect, which acquired the 
name of Anabaptist by their administering a new 
rite of baptism to those who came over to their 
Communion, is hid in the remotest depths of an- 
tiquity, and is consequently difficult to be ascer- 
tained." "Is hid in the remotest depths of an- 
tiquity" is a sentence used so often that I many 
times can but smile at the stereotyped deception. 
But let us read the whole of the paragraph. Mos- 
heim continues: " This uncertainty will not ap- 
pear surprising when it is considered that this sect 
started up all of a sudden in several countries, at 
the same point of time, under leaders of different 
talents, and different intentions, and at the very 
period when the first contests of the Reformers with 



Baptist Succession. 59 

the Roman pontiff's drew the attention of the world, 
and employed the pens of the learned in such a 
manner as to render all other objects and incidents 
almost matters of indifference. " 

Here is Mosheim's "remote (not 'remotest') 
depths of antiquity" illustrated. This sect started 
up all of a sudden in several countries, at the same 
point of time, and this point of time was " when 
the first contests of the Reformers with the Eoman 
pontiffs drew the attention of the world, and em- 
ployed the pens of the learned." "The remote 
depths of antiquity" are not so remote after all. 
Mosheim settles the date of the Anabaptists in 
Luther's day — in the sixteenth century. 

And Benedict, a Baptist, says: U I will give 
them a place among the Reformers, where they 
properly belong." 

Menuo Simon, who reduced them to order, as a 
sect, "had formerly been a popish priest, in 1536 
resigned his rank and office in the Romish Church." 

The father of the Mennonites, whom the Baptists 
claim as their father also, was a Roman Catholic 
priest ! 

Cannot any one. with one grain of common sense, 
see clearly the fallacy and foolishness of Baptist 
pretensions in reference to these Anabaptists? 

Mr. Goodrich, p. 267, says: "In 1608, some In- 
dependents in England separated from their own 
Communion, and sent one of their number to Hol- 
land, to be immersed by the Dutch Anabaptists. 
From this time they rejected the name of Anabap- 
tists, and adopted that of Baptist, claiming to be 
the only true Church." 

Here, then, is the first time in the history of the 
world, that the name Baptist turns up as attached 
to any sect of Christians, and yet they would make 
the ignorant and uninformed believe that that 



60 Baptist Pretensions. 

name has been attached to them ever since the 
days of John the Baptist; whereas, they adopted 
that name themselves about the year 1608. So, 
then, Baptists, instead of being as old as John the 
Baptist, are only about two hundred and sixty years 
old. One would think this was dwindling the thing 
down to "a mere frazzle/' Well, such is the truth, 
if there be any reliance given to history. 

I will now examine the English Baptists, and the 
same results will follow as before. Dr. "Wall gives 
a number of historians who agree that there was 
not an English Anabaptist in England previous to 
1633. But there were a few Dutch Anabaptists a 
little earlier. 

Mr. Haynes, pp. 327-330, says: "The oldest 
Baptist Church in Britain, continuing to the pres- 
ent time, bears date A.D. 1633." Benedict, a Bap- 
tist historian, says: "John Smyth went over to 
Holland; he was a clergymen of the Established 
Church, and joined these people. He formed his 
converts into a distinct Church, chiefly, if not 
wholly, composed of exiles from his own country. 
This appears to have been the first Baptist Church, 
composed of Englishmen after the Reformation. 
It was formed about 1608, about twenty years prior 
to 1633, when the Church, under the care of Mr. 
Spilsbury, which Mr. Crosby reckons the first Bap- 
tist Church, was organized. 

" He and all his disciples had been sprinkled in 
their infancy; and, therefore, according to their 
new views, were unbaptized. There were, indeed, 
many Churches in Holland who practiced immer- 
sion ; but, as they differed widely in sentiment 
from him, he did not choose to receive baptism 
from them. This completely refutes Dr. Mosheim's 
supposition that the English Baptists derived their 
origin from the German and Dutch Mennonites, 



Baptist Succession. 61 

and that, in former times, they adopted their doc- 
trine in all its points. Mr. Smyth and his follow- 
ers looked upon their great errors as improper ad- 
ministrators of baptism. This obliged Mr. Smyth 
to consider of some other means of receiving it. 
First formed themselves into a Church, and then 
appointed two of their number, perhaps Mr. Smyth 
and Mr. Helwisse, to baptize each other, and after- 
ward to baptize the rest. A similar difficulty oc- 
curred at the formation of the original Baptist 
Church in America, by Roger Williams, who had 
recourse to the same expedient; and we shall find, 
in the sequel of this history, that the good men in 
Leicestershire, in the middle of the last centuiw, 
adopted the same method." 

What need we any farther witness? Mr. Smyth 
repudiated their baptism, and would not have it, 
but was baptized by one who had not been im- 
mersed; and this Mr. Smyth formed a new Church, 
out of those who were baptized by himself and coad- 
jutor, Mr. Helwisse, who, as one good turn deserved 
another, was baptized by Mr. Smyth. 

If, then, Mr. Smyth was authorized, by this pro- 
cedure, to baptize and form a new Church, and if 
this is the origin of Baptists in England, which, 
according to Mr. Benedict, is true ; and if this con- 
stitutes their Churches of Christ, I ask, in the name 
of common sense, did not Mr. Wesley, or any other 
man, have the same right? 

Mr. Benedict, Elder Haynes, and others, say Eng- 
lish Baptists did not derive their baptism from the 
Anabaptists, but that Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwisse 
baptized each other, and that this was their origin 
in England, about the year 1633. It follows, then, 
as clear as a noonday sun, that they are only about 
two hundred and forty years old in this country. 

Mr. Benedict, a Baptist historian, says Mr. 



62 Baptist Pretensions. 

Smyth was immersed by a layman. Then Baptists 
should cease that foolish and nonsensical parade 
about themselves only having a regular baptism. 

Well, I have faithfully traveled in company with 
Mr. Orchard, from the Jewish Jordan to the British 
Thames, and must say, as I must answer to God at 
the great day, I have not yet found such a Baptist 
as Mr. Ray claims to be, nowhere, or among any 
people, much less ".Societies" or "denominations." 

American Baptists, where did they get their bap- 
tism ? Baptist succession makes a poor show on 
this side of the Atlantic. Mr. Haynes, a Baptist 
historian, says, p. 51: "The two oldest Baptist 
Churches in the United States — namely, First Prov- 
idence, and First Newport, R. I. — who still dispute 
the honor of being the older, bearing date, the for- 
mer A.D. 1639, and the latter A.D. 1644." 

Goodrich, p. 268, says : " The first Baptist Church 
in America was formed about the year 1639, at Prov- 
idence, R. I., by the famous Roger Williams." 

Mr. Benedict says : " In 1639 he was baptized by 
Ezekiel Holliman, a layman, who was appointed by 
the little company for the purpose. Then he bap- 
tized the rest of the company, and thus laid the 
foundation for the first Baptist Church in Provi- 
dence, and on the American continent. 

" Some of our writers have taken no little pains 
to apologize for this unusual transaction, but, in my 
opinion, it was just such a course as all companies 
of believers, who wish to form a Church in such ex- 
traordinary circumstances, should pursue. 

"Any company of Christians may commence a 
Church in gospel order, by their own mutual agree- 
ment, without an} 7 reference to any other body. 
This is the Baptist doctrine of apostolical succes- 
sion." 

And this is the Pedobaptist doctrine of apostolical 



Baptist Succession. 63 

succession. So, then, intelligent Baptists and my- 
self are one on this great question; and we oppose 
the rayish ''absurdities/' as Dr. Wayland calls it. 

Benedict says : "It would be difficult, at this day, 
to make a complete list of all the Baptist commu- 
nities which have sprung from this ancient and pro- 
lific mother. From it probably originated, in early 
times, all which arose in the northern part of the 
State. This Church shot out into divers branches, 
as the members increased, and the distance of their 
habitations made it inconvenient to attend the pub- 
lic worship in the town. In 1743, a Church was 
formed at Greenwich, partly of members from this 
body. In 1805-6, the Second Church, Providence, 
and those at Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, were formed 
of members from the parent stock; and large 
draughts have been made from it in the formation 
of a number of the city Churches, which have 
arisen since that period." There is not one Bap- 
tist in Europe or America who has not received 
his or her baptism from the hands of a layman. 
"When this fact is understood by the members of 
that Church, they will not compliment the rayish 
succession logic very highly. And Mr. Ray him- 
self may see the day when his "Hand-book of Bap- 
tist History" w T ill haunt him like a ghost in his 
nightly dreams, and he startle, crying, " take 
away that Baptist succession !" And Mr. Ray 
would have you believe that they did not descend 
from the Williams Church, and that Church soon 
died out and left no heirs. But Mr. Benedict, Bap- 
tist historian, informs us above that it was a "pro- 
lific mother," and gives several Churches that were 
branches of it, even down as late as the years 
1805-6; and adds, "All the Churches mentioned 
above are in what was his bishopric for many years, 
and where he performed much itinerant service in 



64 Baptist Pretensions. 

connection with his pastorship at home'' (p. 459). 
And it is sought to prove that the Newport Church 
was the oldest. But the above Baptist writers, and 
others I could mention, place them thus : Provi- 
dence Church, 1639; and Newport, 1644; and of 
the two the one at Providence was the morfe "pro- 
lific." Mr. Pay, there is no use "twisting and 
screwing here" to get out of this lay-baptism 
affair. Just "own up" the matter, and throw 
yourself upon the mercy of the people, and not at- 
tempt to "gull" them any longer. But is this a 
regular succession of baptisms? Broken in Eng- 
land, and America, too. Is there not a strange co- 
incidence here? 

In England, the Baptist Church commenced with 
lay-baptism ; so did it in America, and about the 
same time, also. 

Why have they not canonized Mr. Smyth, of 
England, and Roger Williams, of America, as the 
"two witnesses" spoken of in the Book of Reve- 
lation ? Lay-baptism ! This is the best the Bap- 
tist Church can give you. Their name, Baptist, 
commenced with their lay-baptism. 

And now, if there is any truth in history, I de- 
clare, in the sincerity of my heart, that I found no 
Baptist Church until I met with the one set up by 
Mr. Smyth, in England, and Roger Williams, in 
America. Baptist history establishes this opinion. 
Benedict says: "We place no kind of reliance on 
this sort of testimony, to establish the soundness of 
our faith, or the validity of our administrations." 

Dr. Wayland, a Baptist, and one of the great 
men of the nation, says : " Congregationalists, 
Episcopalians, and Methodists, here frequently 
baptize persons on profession of their faith. We 
consider them as baptized believers, and, when they 
request it, admit them upon a simple relation of 



Baptist Succession. 65 

their experience. Indeed, were not this admitted, 
I know not to what absurdities we should be re- 
duced. If the obedience of Christ depends upon 
the ordinance being administered by a regularly 
baptized administrator, where are we to stop, and 
how shall we know who is regularly baptized, or 
who has obeyed Christ?" 

Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, another great man 
among the Baptists, says: u It is, that if no baptism 
be yalid without an administrator whose baptism is 
regular, then there can be no valid baptism. The 
oft-exposed fiction of the apostolic succession is ri- 
diculous enough, but the baptistical succession is 
even more puerile." 

These great and good men of the Baptist Church, 
"fire hot-shot" into the doctrine of a regular suc- 
cession of immersers ! Here I leave you to your 
own reflections, with this question : Can a few men 
with lay-baptism found or build up a new and only 
true Church of God? presumption and bigotry, 
how great are ye ! 

Your claim, alas! ye cannot prove; 
Ye want the genuine mark of love : 
Thou only, Lord, thine own canst show ; 
For sure thou hast a Church below. 



The End. 



1 



BAPTIST PRETENSIONS: 



First. " We are the only true Church of 
Christ:' 

Second. "We have been persecuted for our 
principles" 

Third. " We have given civil and religious 
liberty to America" 



MET AND CONFUTED BY 



THE REV. B. F. SEDWICK, 



Member of the Kentucky Conference, 



NASHVILLE, TENK". : 
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING 'HOUSE. 

1876. 



• ~ ow 



iwaN 









Wte^^On^ 









m 



■a a /^r A An" 



M 



TOMW 



: : ' 



VN&l 




r\\2\ 



jjayi 






W«iA 



lA'^ 1 - n ^^s 






mM&m^ 



msa 



iHMMMn ^Maa^, 



TOWak 



n»a^isiig^flisi^ 



Si\ft 






'Oh^nr-RRH 






i4SfiiSSfi^ 



«a 



■/^ ■• f/---\ ;p,ii.^ !'a" ; '?v ; '■■/-*0 VV >~0 

mSSBmwr 



ifes 



napA^Wf 



XOa:^^. 






i.n.!™. RY 0F CONGRESS 



021 899 321 7 



